IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed the Family Court's decision to award maintenance to minor children, emphasizing the father's obligation despite the mother's income.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH CHAND, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Special P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. Nos.2 and 3.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order/judgment dated 25th November, 2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag in Original Maintenance Case No. 154 of 2018, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month each to Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 as maintenance from the date of filing of the case.

3. The brief facts leading to this criminal revision are that the maintenance application was moved on behalf of the petitioner Nibha Singh and her two minor children, namely, Aradhya Samridhi and Adityadeo Singh under Section 125 Cr.P.C. with these averments that the petitioner – Nibha Singh was married with Opposite Party – Raghubar Singh on 2nd December, 2010 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Two children were born out of their wedlock. Out of them one is son and another is daughter. The petitioner was tortured by the Opposite Party (husband) for non-fulfilment of additional demand of Rs.5 lacs as dowry. Panchayati and conciliation proceeding was also held many times. After a panchayat on 9th September, 2018 she also went along with both the children to her matrimonial house but on account of repeated demand of Rs.5 lacs and for non-fulfilment of the same she compelled to file Sadar (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 12 of 2018 which was registered under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Opposite Party (husband) has been neglecting to maintain the petitioner and her two minor children while he has sufficient means as he is getting Rs.45,000/- salary per month and has also income of Rs.10 lac from the ancestral agricultural land. In view of above prayed the maintenance amount for herself and her two minor children.

4. On behalf of the Opposite Party (husband), reply of the show-cause was filed in which he stated that petitioner – Nibha Singh is able to maintain herself. She has been working since 2017, much before filing the maintenance application, in Rural Self Employment Training Institute, Hazaribagh managed by Allahabad Bank with active co-operation from the Government of India and State Government. She is Office Assistant and had joined on 20th February, 2017. She is getting salary of Rs.13,200/- per month and her present salary is not in his knowledge. As such she is able to maintain not only herself but the two children as well. In view of the above prayed to dismiss the maintenance application.

5. The learned trial court framed the following points for determination:

i. Whether the petitioner-1 is legally wedded wife of OP and remaining two minor petitioners are daughter and son respectively born out of said wedlock?

ii. Whether the petitioners are unable to maintain herself?

iii. Whether the OP has sufficient means and what is his income?

iv. Whether the OP has been voluntarily neglecting to maintain the petitioners?

v. Whether the petitioner-1 has sufficient cause to live separately?

vi. Whether the petitioners are entitled of maintenance from OP and if yes then quantum?

6. On behalf of the petitioner in oral evidence examined three witnesses, P.W. 1 Om Prakash Jha, P.W.2 Nibha Singh and P.W.-3 Ramjit Singh.

7. On behalf of the Opposite Party in oral evidence examined O.P.W. 1 Raghubansh Narayan Singh and O.P.W. 2 Raghubar Singh.

8. No documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of either parties.

9. The learned Family Court passed the impugned judgment whereby the maintenance application was allowed in part, wherein the prayer for the maintenance for the wife was refused while the prayer for maintenance of two minor children was allowed and Opposite Party (husband) was directed to pay Rs.5000/- each per month to both the minor children from the date of filing the maintenance application.

10. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment, this criminal revision has been directed on behalf of